I'm sorry If I'm about to offend you.
I'm surfing the net in the hopes of finding some reputable new source claiming that mortgage lenders are to blame for this current state of economy, and I come across this page.
I spent about 3 minutes reading, just enough to tell that there are some of you who are well versed in your respective arguments and those who aren't.
However, I must say - WTF are you doing spending seconds, minutes, hours on a proverbial News site arguing over mute points?!
Are your dicks so small that you inherently find a need to spend countless time arguing over the language of the 21st century, instead of spending that time loving, nourishing, and caring for family and friends? helping those in your community?
I must say, it does NOT amaze me that the economy, and more so civilization as a whole is so rampantly decrepit. And that is because of people like YOU, yes YOU, the person who takes the time to read this entirely useless posting.
Do yourself and someone else a favor, push the shiny button that has the broken circle with the line protruding from the top, then find the nearest person, give them a hug; then find the nearest bridge and jump off it.
JUDGMENT CALLS
Robert J. Samuelson
Who's to Blame?
Why capitalists are capitalism's most dangerous enemy.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Amid the mayhem in the world's financial markets, it is becoming clear that capitalism's most dangerous enemies are capitalists. No one can have watched the subprime mortgage debacle without noticing the absurd contrast between the magnitude of the failure and the lavish rewards heaped on those who presided over it. At Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, large losses on subprime securities cost chief executives their jobs—and they left with multimillion-dollar pay packages. Stanley O'Neal, the ex-head of Merrill, received an estimated $161 million.
Everyday Americans will conclude (rightly) that this brand of capitalism is rigged in favor of the privileged few. It will be said in their defense that these packages reflected years of service, often highly successful. So? It's not as if these CEOs weren't compensated in all those years. If you leave your company a shambles—with losses to be absorbed by lower-level employees, some of whom will be fired, and shareholders—do you deserve a gold-plated sendoff? Still, the more serious problem transcends the high pay itself and goes to the wider consequences for the economy.
Wall Street's pay practices perversely encourage extreme risk-taking, which can destabilize the economy. Subprime mortgage losses may simply be chapter one. Now there are signs of problems involving securities known as "credit default swaps." Never mind the details. Concentrate on the possible fallout. If banks and investment houses sustain more losses, the nation's credit system will be further wounded, and so will the economy. The Federal Reserve cut its key overnight interest rate yesterday from 4.25 percent to 3.5 percent—a huge move—in part to shore up this wobbly credit system.
By "Wall Street" I mean all the commercial banks, investment banks, mutual funds, hedge funds and the like that comprise the financial sector—but particularly investment banks. Pay is eye-popping. In 2007, Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, received compensation estimated at $68 million. But pay is also heavily skewed toward annual "bonuses" based on the profits that traders and bankers generate. I asked Johnson Associates, a compensation consulting firm, for typical Wall Street pay packages. The results describe "managing directors" based in New York with 10 or 15 years' experience. Most would be in their 40s.
Here are estimates for 2007:
Investment banker: $2.1 million, consisting of $275,000 in base pay plus $1.2 million in cash bonus and $625,000 in long-term bonus. (An investment banker helps firms raise capital by selling new stocks and bonds and also advises on mergers and acquisitions.)
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next Page »
Discuss